Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Fairness Doctrine

When will liberals learn that you simply can't force people to agree with you? The fairness doctrine is anything but.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she planned to “look at the legal and constitutional aspects of” reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

“I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit,” she said. “But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”
Unfortunately for liberals, the weight of the market is against them. The fact is, there's only so much Bush-hatred and emotional rhetoric folks can listen to before they just get tired of it. Sustained audiences (which I haven't got) need more than just passion -- they need substance.

There was a fellow on Fox News this morning saying something or other about big media being insensitive to minority issues and being conservatively leaning when it comes to radio -- I'm assuming he means Clear Channel. He said that local stations tended to be more liberally minded. I doubt the veracity of that statement. My personal experience with this is that local stations can't be painted with the brush of either party; they go where the money is. The talk radio station I listen to locally is independently owned - the only English speaking independently owned and operated station left in Houston, incidentally. The owner has mentioned in the past his dealings with listeners and cost, and mentioned how hard it was for him to compete with Rush. He even had Bill O'Reilly on for a while opposite of Rush, but that was expensive and couldn't compete.

He used to have a "moderate" guy on in the afternoons. After a long while of this guy being on the air, he had to let him go because he wasn't bringing in the revenue.

And therein lies the key to the whole thing. When you realize that all of this is simply a means for the government to employ economic control on a booming industry, and score some political points for the left to boot, you realize this is just another shade of liberalism.

Free speech is great to them, but socialism is greater. The free market is serving the needs of the people; leftists want the market to serve the whims of the government. That's the essence of socialism.

Edit: IMAO has a great take on "No Amnesty for Illegal Liberal Talk Radio".

0 comments: